The double penalty. Building collapse is not the most common type of disaster. But when that happens, it’s a tragedy in more ways than one. In Lille, four months ago, the collapse of two buildings in the city center caused the death of a man. In Pecquencourt, in the North, a year ago, the gable of a couple’s house has fallen because of work done by a neighbour. In these two cases, the insurance companies did not compensate the victims. 20 minutes wanted to know why.
“Oh! The insurance ! Reread your contracts carefully, ”said Martine Aubry, mayor of Lille, last Tuesday, during a press briefing to discuss the aftermath of the fatal collapse of rue Pierre-Mauroy. Because, in addition to the human tragedy, this disaster is causing many collateral victims. Of the sixty businesses impacted, “only four have been compensated for their operating loss,” said the mayor. For the others, the insurers kicked into touch, the contracts not providing for a cessation of activity due to collapse. There was also the case of the owner of an apartment located in one of the collapsed buildings who was repackaged by his insurer, the collapse guarantee only working if the damage had been caused by a truck hitting the building or by the plane crash.
The guarantee collapse too little widespread
The case of this couple from Pecquencourt is perhaps worse. Their adjoining neighbour, who was doing earthworks, damaged the foundations of their house, causing the gable to fall and weakening the entire building, rendering it uninhabitable. Said neighbor was not insured and the couple had not taken out collapse insurance. “This is indeed part of the optional guarantees and it is not very widespread, quite simply because we never think of taking it out and insurers do not necessarily promote it”, explains master Marc-Antoine Zimmermann, lawyer specializing in victims’ rights in Lille.
This famous collapse guarantee, the State was not in favor of making it compulsory either, according to Robert Bréhon, spokesperson for the UFC in the North: “When asked about the question, the Minister of Housing quite simply explained that making this mandatory warranty could encourage owners not to maintain their property. One probably did not prevent the other in the case of Lille.
“My client only has his eyes to cry”
Because the problem arises essentially for the owners. “For the tenants, it is necessarily the responsibility of the owner to guarantee the good conservation of the building, insists the lawyer. And if the building collapses, the tenant is entitled to compensation for all his damages, including the fact that he must be rehoused. In this case, there is no need to wait for the results of the expert appraisals to receive provisions on the final compensation. But if you’re the owner, it’s another matter. “For a file that I am dealing with in this case in Lille, my client only has his eyes to cry and must relocate on his own”, continues master Zimmermann.
When it comes to property insurance, everyone agrees that all cases are unique. Taking out a de facto collapse guarantee may not be a bad idea, at least if the exclusion clauses are not far-fetched. “Insurers can put whatever they want and the consumer will have no recourse since he will have signed a contract”, underlines the UFC Que Choisir. “In addition to the collapse guarantee, there are others that can be interesting, especially for professionals, adds the lawyer. Like the relocation guarantee. “It’s a bit like in a restaurant, depending on whether you take the menu or à la carte: “If you pay 300 euros or 1,000 euros a year, you will not be covered in the same way”, recognizes master Zimmerman. You still have to think of everything when signing your contract, and “read the small lines with the asterisks”, insists Martine Aubry.